That sounds like a good program. It is unfortunate that you don't appreciate what you are getting. You need to get into the mindset that programs are proofs -- and you can prove things much more easily using a constructive first order logic than you can with pebbles and buckets and instructions for moving pebbles around -- the sort of procedural programming you seem to have nostalgia for. Those days are long dead. Even Intel's engineers don't understand how their processors work, except at a high level. Electrons flow through transistors, which implement a micro-code machine which emulates the x86 architecture, which is queried by the BIOS and kernel, which supports your applications.
It's my understanding that Canadians arguably do have the right he described. Having paid for a product, he can legally download a replacement because the original product is defective. (Yes, it's more nuanced than that -- it depends on how the product is marketed, if the box says you have to pay for the movies, etc) In that case, 100$ is somewhat a good deal. It comes to about $4.50/movie license, after discounting the price of a hard drive.
You do realize that taking purposefully taking action that causes an accident is at best negligence, right? You will definitely end up with liability if you do something stupid while being tailgated (like slamming the brakes when it is unsafe to do so, as it is when you're being tailgated...) You had better have a good reason for slamming your brakes if you're being tailgated. Like an actual red light. Or an object in your path.
Also, "a stiff neck" is a serious problem. Getting rear ended is a common cause of spinal and nerve injury. It might not be so nice for the left side of your body to be paralyzed just to prove a point.
Let me tell you about an accident that almost was. I was driving on the I-95, in Florida, heading North. I was in the rightmost lane. There was relatively heavy traffic, and a car three lanes away was speeding. It decided to swerve across four lanes, in order to make an exit. In doing so, it drove directly in a collision course with my car. Now, I had "two" options. I could maintain the same course, and take a big hit in the rear side of my car. That would be bad. Going at 50MPH and taking a lateral hit behind the rear wheels would have flipped me over. I had another option: speed up, a lot, as traffic in front of me was slowing, just to give the guy 10 inches of clearance. And that is what I did (and I had to brake AND down shift to second gear to slow down in time to avoid a collision. He was trying to slow down as slowly as he could, given his constraints, too. He saw parts of what happened)
Not paying attention, my ass. We only avoided an accident because the driver in front of me did everything he could to do avoid it. As did I. Avoiding accidents is your FIRST responsibility on the road.
I think my point is a little beyond that. Unless I'm developing or debugging an application or OS I never want to see a process manager, even if you fucked up your code somewhere in your program. In my ideal world I wouldn't even have to force quit a program or process, my OS would do it for me.
Why would a system hang if a single process hangs? Unless it's an essential, system process, of course. That's rather the point. If an application hangs in OS X, I "force quit". That ought to be the exception.
Except there's nothing to "swipe" at in mathematics. Even though he was a constructivist logician, a la Brouwer. There was plenty of constructive mathematics going on, if he didn't like the classical stuff. (Which the author suggests he thought was wishy-washy and unrigorous...)
nowhere does the Bible (including the Pentateuch) say "Earth is the one and only place where God created life and there are no aliens of any sort". Or if it says that, I certainly cannot find it and have never received a reference for where it may be found. If it did say that, then I would understand the concerns about extraterrestrial life and the damage it might cause for various religions.
Of course it is. There are simple ways of increasing the efficiency of a capitalist market. Lowering the cost of capital is very important. Nobody wants to pay high interest loans. People actually cooperate in order to lower the cost of capital for projects. That is one thing companies are good for.
A pool of high quality software lowers the cost of capital for every business that uses it. This is why companies contribute to open source projects.
Yes, these are important ideas. Mathematicians and philosophers have abstracted them out into "logic". I don't mean to sound condescending. A "theory" (in the sense of logic) is a set of mutually consistent sentences, closed under logical implication. A "model" for the theory is a set of objects which "satisfy" the theory. This is straightforward to explain, but there are some fiddly details that I won't go into. Consider the theory generated by:
Every Blue thing is Strong. Every Strong thing is Blue.
Models define truth. We can construct a simple model for this theory: The singleton set that contains that blue guy from the Watchmen. We can construct another one: the set that contains the Watchmen guy, and a nicely painted blue steel bar. And so on and so forth. The thing to note is that every object in the model needs to "satisfy" both the sentences. This can happen "vacuously". If we create a "subtheory" by adding a sentence to the theory, say, "Doctor Octagon is a rapper", a model for the new theory would contain Doctor Octagon, in addition to the strong blue stuff. At least, under the assumption that Doctor Octagon is neither blue nor strong. If the "real" Doctor Octagon is either, he must be both, in a model of the theory.
Data doesn't define models. Data defines theories. An observation that some blue things are strong gets generalized, via the scientific method, to the claim that every blue thing is strong. Indeed, the point of the scientific method is that every observation has the "same" status -- assumed to be true, as long as it was recorded properly. In this sense, the "record" is a sort of "unanalyzed" theory. Human brains can (maybe, sometimes) work out generalizations from that data. But, and here's the important part, the model is the real world. But we don't have access to "the model". We're a part of it. All we can do is try to grope for "axioms" from which we can generate a "copy" of the real world, using the "model theoretic" construction I discussed. But we run into undecidability very quickly. If there is ANY models that satisfy an undecidable theory, there are infinitely many (extremely different) models that satisfy that theory. And we can't even distinguish between them using scientific language. (This is a consequence of Godel's theorem, in very vague terms, and using a slight conceptual shift in logic of the last few decades. In particular, if you can prove a sentence in a theory, the sentence is "true" in every model for the theory. If you can't prove a sentence, then it can be true OR false, depending on which model you decide to use to evaluate its truth.)
Superstring theory is an interesting case, given this discussion. Physicists essentially took the "entire record" of physical theory, picked a few important equations, and turned them into logical axioms. This was done without apology. The superstring theorists are doing what I described above, explicitly. It is "unscientific" because it doesn't predict anything new. But, of course, that is because physics before superstring theory was already closed under logical implication (at least in broad strokes). A nice formalization of a theory isn't going to add new proof (or falsifiable experiments) to a poor or disorganized formalization. On the other hand, superstring theory is just as scientific as 100 year old science is now. If an experiment proves Maxwell's equations wrong, it will disprove superstring theory too. If an experiment proves superstring theory wrong, it will be proving some old physical theory wrong.
Buddhism isn't about the middle path. That's a different religion.
Buddhism is a simple "religion" that postulates simple metaphysics wherein you are a monkey that has to eat, sleep, have sex, and so on. Denial of these needs causes suffering. Suffering is inescapable as long as people have these desires. That does not mean people need to try to abandon them, so much as transcend them by living virtuously. Think Greek, and you would be much closer than your crap Taoist comparison.
Let me know when stores start keeping forges next to their gold registers, so I can split my bullion into "non-microscopic pieces" of gold and barter for my groceries. Gold is a FANTASTIC currency.
And if you have any good comics, I might take you up on that.
In particular, Fourier Analysis didn't exist when Copernicus was working on this stuff. Using Fourier Analysis, you can naturally model orbital paths as "infinite sums" of "epicycles", an idea the medieval mathematicians and philosophers found distasteful until about 1750, when Fourier did his work, and Riemann, Gauss, Weierstrass, Cauchy, and lots of others put it on solid ground.
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds like a good program. It is unfortunate that you don't appreciate what you are getting. You need to get into the mindset that programs are proofs -- and you can prove things much more easily using a constructive first order logic than you can with pebbles and buckets and instructions for moving pebbles around -- the sort of procedural programming you seem to have nostalgia for. Those days are long dead. Even Intel's engineers don't understand how their processors work, except at a high level. Electrons flow through transistors, which implement a micro-code machine which emulates the x86 architecture, which is queried by the BIOS and kernel, which supports your applications.
It's my understanding that Canadians arguably do have the right he described. Having paid for a product, he can legally download a replacement because the original product is defective. (Yes, it's more nuanced than that -- it depends on how the product is marketed, if the box says you have to pay for the movies, etc) In that case, 100$ is somewhat a good deal. It comes to about $4.50/movie license, after discounting the price of a hard drive.
(There's probably something from my statistics course that explains why that is, but I have so far managed to suppress that memory.)
Birthday paradox. More of a combinatorics issue than statistics though.
You do realize that taking purposefully taking action that causes an accident is at best negligence, right? You will definitely end up with liability if you do something stupid while being tailgated (like slamming the brakes when it is unsafe to do so, as it is when you're being tailgated...) You had better have a good reason for slamming your brakes if you're being tailgated. Like an actual red light. Or an object in your path.
Also, "a stiff neck" is a serious problem. Getting rear ended is a common cause of spinal and nerve injury. It might not be so nice for the left side of your body to be paralyzed just to prove a point.
Let me tell you about an accident that almost was. I was driving on the I-95, in Florida, heading North. I was in the rightmost lane. There was relatively heavy traffic, and a car three lanes away was speeding. It decided to swerve across four lanes, in order to make an exit. In doing so, it drove directly in a collision course with my car. Now, I had "two" options. I could maintain the same course, and take a big hit in the rear side of my car. That would be bad. Going at 50MPH and taking a lateral hit behind the rear wheels would have flipped me over. I had another option: speed up, a lot, as traffic in front of me was slowing, just to give the guy 10 inches of clearance. And that is what I did (and I had to brake AND down shift to second gear to slow down in time to avoid a collision. He was trying to slow down as slowly as he could, given his constraints, too. He saw parts of what happened)
Not paying attention, my ass. We only avoided an accident because the driver in front of me did everything he could to do avoid it. As did I. Avoiding accidents is your FIRST responsibility on the road.
Well, if you can screw up the phone by installing an app, then that speaks loads about the operating system...
Sorry, it doesn't. If I can convince you to run "sudo rm -rf /", it's hardly the operating system's fault everything got deleted.
It's called "negotiating".
It would be pretty great if Werner Herzog shot in 3D. I'd pay quite a bit to see that.
I think my point is a little beyond that. Unless I'm developing or debugging an application or OS I never want to see a process manager, even if you fucked up your code somewhere in your program. In my ideal world I wouldn't even have to force quit a program or process, my OS would do it for me.
Look up the "Halting Problem".
Why would a system hang if a single process hangs? Unless it's an essential, system process, of course. That's rather the point. If an application hangs in OS X, I "force quit". That ought to be the exception.
They are paying for service, probably including a big charge for "local broadcast television". Don't you want to get what you pay for?
Except there's nothing to "swipe" at in mathematics. Even though he was a constructivist logician, a la Brouwer. There was plenty of constructive mathematics going on, if he didn't like the classical stuff. (Which the author suggests he thought was wishy-washy and unrigorous...)
Unless you put the material in the treads, effectively increasing the flow rate through the tread at any given force. That's a gain for efficiency.
Sure, Dodgson was a mathematician and logician. But he was writing a mind bending kids story, not "satirizing" his trade.
nowhere does the Bible (including the Pentateuch) say "Earth is the one and only place where God created life and there are no aliens of any sort". Or if it says that, I certainly cannot find it and have never received a reference for where it may be found. If it did say that, then I would understand the concerns about extraterrestrial life and the damage it might cause for various religions.
http://www.roseavenue.org/Who%20we%20are/what%20we%20believe/Bible/complete%20and%20perfect.htm
The Bible is "perfect and complete". If the Bible didn't mention it, it didn't happen.
Arggggggggggggg the Principia Mathematica. Why did you mention that on a Sunday? I was trying to forget about Russell.
So at what point does "being wealthy" have any further benefit ?
Look up things called "marginal cost" and "marginal gain". That will answer your question about "being wealthy" and "being wealthier".
You have trouble comprehending the situation. The rest of the insured people payed the cost!!!
Excellent deduction. I'm glad you understand how insurance has always worked.
FOSS is not compatible with Capitalism.
Of course it is. There are simple ways of increasing the efficiency of a capitalist market. Lowering the cost of capital is very important. Nobody wants to pay high interest loans. People actually cooperate in order to lower the cost of capital for projects. That is one thing companies are good for.
A pool of high quality software lowers the cost of capital for every business that uses it. This is why companies contribute to open source projects.
Yes, these are important ideas. Mathematicians and philosophers have abstracted them out into "logic". I don't mean to sound condescending. A "theory" (in the sense of logic) is a set of mutually consistent sentences, closed under logical implication. A "model" for the theory is a set of objects which "satisfy" the theory. This is straightforward to explain, but there are some fiddly details that I won't go into. Consider the theory generated by:
Every Blue thing is Strong.
Every Strong thing is Blue.
Models define truth. We can construct a simple model for this theory: The singleton set that contains that blue guy from the Watchmen. We can construct another one: the set that contains the Watchmen guy, and a nicely painted blue steel bar. And so on and so forth. The thing to note is that every object in the model needs to "satisfy" both the sentences. This can happen "vacuously". If we create a "subtheory" by adding a sentence to the theory, say, "Doctor Octagon is a rapper", a model for the new theory would contain Doctor Octagon, in addition to the strong blue stuff. At least, under the assumption that Doctor Octagon is neither blue nor strong. If the "real" Doctor Octagon is either, he must be both, in a model of the theory.
Data doesn't define models. Data defines theories. An observation that some blue things are strong gets generalized, via the scientific method, to the claim that every blue thing is strong. Indeed, the point of the scientific method is that every observation has the "same" status -- assumed to be true, as long as it was recorded properly. In this sense, the "record" is a sort of "unanalyzed" theory. Human brains can (maybe, sometimes) work out generalizations from that data. But, and here's the important part, the model is the real world. But we don't have access to "the model". We're a part of it. All we can do is try to grope for "axioms" from which we can generate a "copy" of the real world, using the "model theoretic" construction I discussed. But we run into undecidability very quickly. If there is ANY models that satisfy an undecidable theory, there are infinitely many (extremely different) models that satisfy that theory. And we can't even distinguish between them using scientific language. (This is a consequence of Godel's theorem, in very vague terms, and using a slight conceptual shift in logic of the last few decades. In particular, if you can prove a sentence in a theory, the sentence is "true" in every model for the theory. If you can't prove a sentence, then it can be true OR false, depending on which model you decide to use to evaluate its truth.)
Superstring theory is an interesting case, given this discussion. Physicists essentially took the "entire record" of physical theory, picked a few important equations, and turned them into logical axioms. This was done without apology. The superstring theorists are doing what I described above, explicitly. It is "unscientific" because it doesn't predict anything new. But, of course, that is because physics before superstring theory was already closed under logical implication (at least in broad strokes). A nice formalization of a theory isn't going to add new proof (or falsifiable experiments) to a poor or disorganized formalization. On the other hand, superstring theory is just as scientific as 100 year old science is now. If an experiment proves Maxwell's equations wrong, it will disprove superstring theory too. If an experiment proves superstring theory wrong, it will be proving some old physical theory wrong.
Buddhism isn't about the middle path. That's a different religion.
Buddhism is a simple "religion" that postulates simple metaphysics wherein you are a monkey that has to eat, sleep, have sex, and so on. Denial of these needs causes suffering. Suffering is inescapable as long as people have these desires. That does not mean people need to try to abandon them, so much as transcend them by living virtuously. Think Greek, and you would be much closer than your crap Taoist comparison.
People who embrace authority are "individualistic"? Who came up with that definition?
It's spelled "douche bag". And the answer to your question is any student of the Classics. Learn something.
Let me know when stores start keeping forges next to their gold registers, so I can split my bullion into "non-microscopic pieces" of gold and barter for my groceries. Gold is a FANTASTIC currency.
And if you have any good comics, I might take you up on that.
You don't. You can't express that first sentence if you don't have a word for its object.
In particular, Fourier Analysis didn't exist when Copernicus was working on this stuff. Using Fourier Analysis, you can naturally model orbital paths as "infinite sums" of "epicycles", an idea the medieval mathematicians and philosophers found distasteful until about 1750, when Fourier did his work, and Riemann, Gauss, Weierstrass, Cauchy, and lots of others put it on solid ground.